Reject stale provider test exemptions - #71985
Open
zhangxinyao88 wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Remove outdated OVERLOOKED_TESTS entries and ensure each remaining exemption corresponds to a current provider module.
zhangxinyao88
marked this pull request as ready for review
August 22, 2026 19:17
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Remove 14 outdated entries from
OVERLOOKED_TESTS:Add a project-structure assertion that requires every remaining exemption to correspond to a current provider module, preventing dead entries from accumulating again.
related: #35442
Testing:
breeze run pytest airflow-core/tests/unit/always/test_project_structure.py::TestProjectStructure::test_providers_modules_should_have_tests -xvsWas generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?
Generated-by: Codex following the guidelines
Drafted-by: Codex GPT-5; reviewed by @zhangxinyao88 before posting